Supreme Court Remits Case for Reconsideration, Allows Appeal

The State of Maharashtra Versus Vishnu Ramchandra

The State of Maharashtra Versus Vishnu Ramchandra - 1961 AIR 307, 1961 SCR (2) 26 Issues Involved:
1. Application of Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act.
2. Interpretation of "has been convicted" in Section 57.
3. Prospective vs. retrospective application of penal statutes.
4. Validity of the externment order based on past convictions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act:
The primary issue revolves around the application of Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, which allows authorities to extern individuals convicted of specific offenses to protect public safety. The respondent, Vishnu Ramchandra, was externed based on a 1949 conviction under Section 380 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court acquitted him, questioning the application of Section 57.

2. Interpretation of "has been convicted" in Section 57:
The High Court interpreted the phrase "has been convicted" in Section 57 as requiring a conviction after the enactment of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The court emphasized the use of the present participle "has been" rather than the past participle, suggesting that the section should apply only to post-enactment convictions. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, explaining that the phrase describes past actions and is used to express a hypothesis without regard to time.

3. Prospective vs. retrospective application of penal statutes:
The High Court held that Section 57 should be interpreted prospectively, as penal statutes typically are. The Supreme Court acknowledged that statutes are generally prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. However, it noted exceptions for statutes designed to protect the public from harmful individuals, which may be applied retrospectively if the language supports such an interpretation.

4. Validity of the externment order based on past convictions:
The High Court invalidated the externment order, arguing that the Deputy Commissioner could not base his belief on a 1949 conviction. The Supreme Court countered that the Act's purpose is to safeguard the public from individuals with a history of specific offenses. The Court emphasized that an externment order must consider convictions sufficiently proximate in time and be made bona fide. The Court concluded that the Act was applied prospectively, not retrospectively, as the action against the respondent occurred after the Act's enforcement.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's acquittal and remitted the case for reconsideration of the other points raised. The judgment clarified that Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act could apply to past convictions if the language and intent of the statute support such an interpretation, emphasizing public protection over the timing of convictions. The appeal was allowed, and the case was sent back to the High Court for further proceedings.